Commons talk:Freedom of panorama

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut: CT:FOP

This page is for discussing improvements to Commons:Freedom of panorama. For discussions of specific copyright questions, please go to Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Discussions that do not relate to changes to the page Commons:Freedom of panorama may be moved, with participants notified with the template {{subst:moved to VPC|FOP}}.

FOP in Taiwan[edit]

Article 58 of the Taiwan copyright law says:

"Artistic works or architectural works displayed on a long-term basis on streets, in parks, on outside walls of buildings, or other outdoor locales open to the public, may be exploited by any means except under the following circumstances:
1.Reproduction of a building by construction of another building.
2.Reproduction of a work of sculpture by production of another sculpture.
3.Reproduction for the purpose of long-term public display in locales specified in this article.
4.Reproduction of artistic works solely for the purpose of selling copies."

(1) and (2) don't concern us. We are concerned only with photographs.

(4) prohibits the selling of copies. That means that FOP does not extend, for our purposes, to photographs, but we are not concerned with the sales of copies of paintings or other works.

(3) is a little vague, but I take it to mean literal reproduction, not a photograph of an object.

Therefore, my reading is that we have been too restrictive -- that photographs of any created work except another photograph are permitted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: It doesn't say the reproduction of an existing building is banned. The Taiwan wording on FOP is a bit vague but doesn't explicitly say a picture of a building is banned. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I read Article 58 closely, and I consider architectural works to also be artistic works, and thus FoP in Taiwan is "X mark.svg Not OK for buildings" due to the prohibition of selling copies (commercial use) in (4). Is that wrong? If so, where do we draw the line between mundane buildings and buildings with unique architectural designs by sought-after architectural designers who want their designs protected for 50 pma? How can case law in Taiwan inform this discussion?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • No offense but I trust Admin (Jameslwoodward)'s reasoning here much more. Also, one shouldn't change FOP policy on one country without a discussion at least. He will respond when he is free. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
It is incorrect to say that a work of architecture is also an artistic work. By that line of reasoning there would be no FOP for architecture in the eight countries that allow FOP only for architecture. It is true that surface decoration on a building -- gargoyles or murals -- can have a copyright separate from the architecture, so that there are buildings whose photographs cannot be kept on Commons despite in FOP , but that is already well understood here.
In the USA, at least, the case law is clear that there are no "mundane" buildings -- even the simplest of buildings has a copyright because even a simple building requires hundreds of creative decisions.
Note that "reproduction" in this context means just that -- reproducing the original. Except for a photograph of a photograph, a photograph is not a reproduction. So (4) prohibits making and selling copy paintings of paintings and photographs of photographs. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I can't read it that way. "Reproduction of a building by construction of another building." is a weird phrasing if "reproduction" just means in the same form; there is no non-scif-fi way to reproduce a building into another building except by construction. Reproduction of a painting as a poster seems a quite normal reading, and much more commercially relevant than reproduction of a painting by a painting.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: makes sense to me. Architects in Taiwan are not supposed to rip off the work of their colleagues, taking a photograph of said building or painting it is OK. Reproduction as a 3D model (like for a video game) will really depend on the translation of "construction" but will not concern us often. It should perhaps be taken into account for 3D uploads as those were enabled a while ago. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Here are two relevant blog posts by a Taiwanese copyright law researcher and professor 章忠信: [1][2]. In his opinion, selling postcards with a photo of the Taipei 101 tower, and selling pencil cases with a 2D drawing of a permanent outdoor sculpture are both ok, whereas selling plastic miniatures of the said sculpture is not. --Wcam (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Additionally, regarding photos of permanent outdoor sculptures, 章忠信 believes that photographic reproduction is a "creative reproduction" rather than reproducing the original [3], so (4) should not apply. --Wcam (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I was interpreting copyright protection for buildings in Taiwan too broadly, in that I thought photos of them would violate their copyrights.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: If it is like this, then why do some photos get deleted and some photos will not?--Kai3952 (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@Kai3952: Hopefully, the following subsection will iron that out.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I think the original stand, that photos of non-free objects are not free, might be the correct one, but the updated policy contradicts the law. Article 3 of the law says, '"Reproduce" means to reproduce directly, indirectly, permanently, or temporarily a work by means of printing, reprography, sound recording, video recording, photography, handwritten notes, or otherwise. This definition also applies to the sound recording or video recording of scripts, musical works, or works of similar nature during their performance or broadcast, and also includes the construction of an architectural structure based on architectural plans or models.' My suggestion is to seek professional legal opinion from Taiwan or to look for precedents in Taiwanese courts.--Roy17 (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Professional legal opinion from Taiwan has been discussed above and were incorporated into the updated policy. --Wcam (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Here is a better piece of legal opinion from the Taiwanese authority-in-charge: [4]. After reading this link I quoted, now I think that as long as a photo is not taken solely of non-free materials, the photo will be free per Taiwanese law. For example, File:Tunyuan Trailhead.jpg is supposedly a photo of the trailroad, but part of the image is a piece of art displayed on a signpost. This would be 合理使用 (reproduction within a reasonable scope).--Roy17 (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Update and clarify COM:FOP#Taiwan[edit]

So far, based on the discussions above and elsewhere (e.g. Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#File:Naval_Mazu_Statue_of_Befangao_Jingan_Temple_20130504.jpg) it looks like there is consensus that we have been too restrictive regarding Taiwan FOP that photos of buildings as well as outdoor sculptures should be allowed. Pinging @Jameslwoodward, Jeff G., Leoboudv, Prosfilaes, Kai3952: to see if any of you have anything to add so that COM:FOP#Taiwan can be clarified. --Wcam (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I don't know enough about this issue. JameslWoodward is the best copyright expert here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support @Wcam: I agree with you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Text updated. --Wcam (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Please note that Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#File:Naval_Mazu_Statue_of_Befangao_Jingan_Temple_20130504.jpg (linked above) has been archived to Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/05#File:Naval Mazu Statue of Befangao Jingan Temple 20130504.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
@Wcam: Text updated further.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyright law misunderstanding with Mongolia's photos[edit]

At this link someone has entered the misunderstood warning about copyright law of Mongolia: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Theaters_in_Mongolia ; Plus the COM:FOP#Mongolia link in the red frame says only expired 1999 version of the law plus the original law link is dead! But I have found the 2006 law version here that the whole warning thing is incorrect. In that 2006 version please do search function of "1948" and there is no any statute regarding 1948. Thank you. Orgio89 (talk) 03:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there is a newer law; 2006 law in English is here. Just like the old law, the term is life plus 50 years. So 50 years ago is 1968; if an architect or author died before then, their works are now expired. Otherwise, they are still under copyright. The new exceptions to copyright is article 24, and while changed I do not see a FoP provision. It says buildings in public places can be used in the course of reporting current events, but that is all. Looks like the theaters page had 70 though instead of 50; another user just fixed that. So it should be 1968 and not 1948. (And next year, it will be 1969, etc.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
1948 is 70 years ago. That was wrong, and I corrected it to 50. While the Google translation is pretty bad, I see nothing that jumps out as a freedom of panorama section, except Article 24, which reads like a fair use clause but does say "The following cases which are not in conflict with the legal nature of the work of the work and the legitimate interests of the right holders shall not be considered as a violation of copyright: ... 24.1.6. Publish the buildings, the art of art and the photographs placed on public premises on the premises for displaying the situation". My tendency is not to read that as enough, but having even a semi-strong conclusion based on Google Translate would be silly.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
This was written before Carl Lindberg posted; given his English translation, I see article 24 as clearly a fairly normal fair use clause.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Non-copyrighted sites in SA[edit]

The section about Saudi Arabia states:

“Even taking pictures of sites not covered by copyrights can be problematic and photographers operating in Saudi Arabia found it useful to carry a copy of a decree allowing taking pictures from public places.”

However, it does not explain the issue with photography of such sites. Which law covers this? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Bosnian Authorship Law and its Article 52[edit]

@Jameslwoodward, Jeff G., Leoboudv, Prosfilaes, Kai3952: I am assuming that you guys are best instance to turn to for issue at hand, since i noticed , hopefully correctly, that you have extended experience in it, so I wonder, if you have spare time, would you be kind to look at following: Someone made terrible mistake interpreting Article 52 of Bosnia and Herzegovina Authorship Law, and I mean really dire mistake - some two hundreds images were deleted upon current interpretation from "Project page" (subsection Bosnia and Herzegovina). To me it was strange to see that country which almost literally rewrote similar Croatian law was painted red on this map, unlike Croatia which is in green, so I decided to read it for myself. So I found that Article 52 actually says a bit different thing from one quoted in text on "Project page" - it literally state:

Član 52. / Article 52
(Djela trajno smještena na javnim mjestima) / (Works permanently situated at public places)
(1) Dopuštena je slobodna upotreba autorskih djela koja su trajno smještena na trgovima, u parkovima, na ulicama ili drugim mjestima pristupačnim javnosti. / Free use of copyrighted works permanently placed on squares, parks, streets, or other places accessible to the public is permitted.
(2) Djela iz stava (1) ovog člana ne smiju se reproducirati u trodimenzionalnom obliku, upotrijebiti za istu namjeru kao izvorno djelo ili upotrijebiti za ostvarivanje imovinske koristi. / The works referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as an original work or used for the purpose of obtaining material gain.

(3) U slučaju korištenja iz stava (1) ovog člana, moraju se naznačiti izvor i ime autora, ako je to navedeno na upotrijebljenom djelu. / In the case of usage referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article, the source and author's name shall be indicated, if indicated on the work in question.

So, the very key word is intelligible even in most foreign languages: "trodimenzionalnom" = in English "threedimensional". referring to reproduction in three dimensions the law states that copyrighted work "is forbidden for reproduction in threedimensional form" !

I am reluctant to go further into this, to make changes on "Project page", subsection "Bosnia and Herzegovina", and alone, but someone of your reputation should take into consideration to make these changes there and on its map, and soon as possible since there are still more images, at least several dozens, waiting to be deleted on ground of faulty interpretation which can be read at "Project page".--Santasa99 (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The WIPO translation is "(2) The works referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work or used for gaining economic advantage." It's not entirely clear, but my interpretation is that "the works shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form"; "the works shall not be used for the same purpose as the original work" and "the works may not be used for gaining economic advantage."--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
@Santasa99, Prosfilaes: @Jameslwoodward, Leoboudv, Kai3952, Alexis Jazz, Ww2censor, @DarwIn: ping didn't work, so I am retrying. "the works may not be used for gaining economic advantage" appears to restrict commercial use of 3D objects, thus we can't host files depicting 3D works and claiming an FOP exemption in Bosnia.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
No, no, dear @Jeff G.:, we are hosting 2-D object, images, not 3-D objects. That much is quite clear. Use of 3-D object is use of 3-D object, not its image which is 2-D, there is nothing vague about that.--Santasa99 (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
My reading of that article is also that FoP is allowed only for non-commercial purposes (something that is trending lately in some copyright laws) - that is, there is no FoP. Unfortunately it seems that there is no FoP in BH, indeed.-- Darwin Ahoy! 00:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.:
http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=5932 :
"Article 52
(Works Permanently Located in Public Places)
(1) The free use of the works permanently located in squares, parks, streets or other places accessible by the public shall be permitted.
(2) The works referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work or used for gaining economic advantage."
(3) In the case of the use referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article, the source and authorship must be indicated if they are indicated on the work used."
This about translates to {{Cc-by-nc}}. (which is a speedy deletion template) This seems to apply to 2D works as well, but I didn't read the entire document. The limitation of not being allowed to reproduce 3D objects as 3D objects is not interesting for us unless someone wants to upload a 3D model of a statue. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't think there is FOP in Bosnia. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I read and reread entire document yesterday. Only this article refers to Free Use and/or reproductions of works situated in public places, and as Serbo-Croatian speaker myself I understand and it is quite clear to me, as far as wikimedia FoP standard is concerned, that only threedimensional repro is prohibited, which clearly means that 2-D or image (photos, sketches) is irrelevant to the law. The other two points in the article referring to prohibition of duplication and usage for personal gain. I really think that there shouldn't be anything even remotely vague?
There is this instance in Article 47. that could be to some extent related to this issue:

Article 47

(Quotations)

(1) It shall be permitted to literally quote passages and quotations from a disclosed work or individual disclosed works of photography, fine art, architecture, applied art and industrial and graphic design for the purpose of scientific research, critique, polemic, review, teaching and other reference to the extent justified by need for the intended illustration, confrontation or referral, and in accordance with good practices.

(2) In the case of the use referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article, the source and authorship must be indicated if they are indicated on the work used.

I am a bit surprised that some of you interpreting this law as "No Free(dom) Of Panorama" in BH , so I assume that you are maybe professionally tied to law and legal stuff. It wouldn't hurt if one of you is a lawyer. To me this is clear as it can be - we are allowed to publicly display 2-D repros, pictures and images, of works placed permanently or temporarily in public - "commercial" portion of the statement is still referring to 3-D reproduction NOT to 2-D - article clearly refer to "threedimensiona reproductionl"!
Why not compare this law with same in Serbia and Croatia ?--Santasa99 (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey, guys, I will ask this seriously - is there a lawyer among you or someone who is professionally associated to juridical matters ? Maybe some expertize would not hurt.
As I already noted at the beginning, BH rewrote entire law from Republic of Croatia - artists themselves were ones who suggested to be rewritten as they likened Croatian law in contrast to outdated socialist law still enforced at the time in Bosnia. That's why this Article 52 is identical in substance to similar in Croatian law, yet you are interpreting them differently - that's unusual, to say the least. I suggest you visit both websites and compare few articles yourself 2003 Zakon Croatian = 2010 Zakon Bosnian - these are identical.--Santasa99 (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Santasa99:
"Hey, guys, I will ask this seriously - is there a lawyer among you or someone who is professionally associated to juridical matters ?"
User:Alexis Jazz#Where the lawyers at?
"That's why this Article 52 is identical in substance to similar in Croatian law, yet you are interpreting them differently - that's unusual, to say the least."
Croatian copyright law, article 91: "The works referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article may not be reproduced in a three-dimensional form."
The noncommercial part is omitted here. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
And in the original language from your links:
(2) Djela iz stavka 1. ovoga članka ne smiju se reproducirati u trodimenzionalnom obliku. (Croatia)
(2) Djela iz stava (1) ovog člana ne smiju se reproducirati u trodimenzionalnom obliku, upotrijebiti za istu namjeru kao izvorno djelo ili upotrijebiti za ostvarivanje imovinske koristi. (Bosnia) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Lately I've seen a lot of misunderstanding about what is FoP, with legislators saying that there is not any problem with FoP, as long as it is non-commercial, as they understand that someone making money with the copyrighted work (like selling postcards) is taking that profit away from the copyright holder. I've seen that discussion a lot in Brazil, and also in the recent EU debates, so it do not surprises me that BH has included that on their more recent copyright law.-- Darwin Ahoy! 19:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no problem with non-commercial FoP in general -- it would cover most uses by most people. It just conflicts with the definition of "free" and the self-imposed requirements of Wikimedia projects. Such photos would be legal to upload, most likely; they however would not conform to site policy and be deleted for that reason. And yes, it would appear the BH law includes the additional non-commercial restriction, which Croatian law does not have, which in turn is the crucial distinction for Commons despite the similarity of the laws otherwise. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: You shouldn't patronize me and mock me, English Wikipedia have entire Category and bunch of Templates for so called "Expert retention" (when needing and requesting expert help) - would it be so strange if person assume that Wikimedia Commons could and should have something similar, especially with all these contentious interpretation of laws and regulations from around the world ? Your first input, along with abrupt injunction of "speedy deletion" claim (you simply know those things at first glance), includes statement: "This seems to apply to 2D works as well, but I didn't read the entire document"; that's quite categorical, so I would like to know on what ground and from what paragraph's statement exactly you derived such conclusion, "2-d" is nowhere to be found in the law, so how on Earth you concluded that it applies to it !? I would really appreciate if you told me that instead of sending me to your personal page.
For the rest of you guys @Jameslwoodward, Jeff G., Leoboudv, Prosfilaes, Kai3952:
Don't you think that images, sketches, photos are reproductions "in a three-dimensional form" - the law says "in" not "of", which I guess means you can't reproduce replica in 3-d, you can't plagiarize, but you can make reproduction of 3-d copyrighted object in 2-d !? (This is elaborated below in boxed entry and website of the body established to interpret and clarify matters of authorship and copyrights, from which I copy/pasted clarification of the Article 52. (entire law is elaborated there).)
Also, shouldn't Paragraph (2) be read statement by statement within paragraph, like in any law everywhere?

Anyway, whoever got it right or wrong, here's some clarification from authorized body called "Institut za intelektualno vlasništvo BH" / "Institute for intellectual property of BH", from their website: Najčešća pitanja o autorskom i srodnim pravima / Common questions about authorship and copyrights (website has its English version but the text on the page isn't translated, unfortunately - at least you can browse through easily and than use online translation engines if necessary)

11. Slobodna upotreba / Free Use

j. Upotreba djela trajno smještenih na javnim mjestima / Use of works permanently situated at public places
Djela koja su trajno smještena na trgovima, parkovima, ulicama ili drugim mjestima pristupačnim javnosti slobodna su za upotrebu. Ta djela svako može fotografirati, snimati, prikazivati u TV-emisijama i slično s tim da se zabranjuje njihova reprodukcija u trodimenzionalnom obliku, upotreba za istu namjeru kao originalno djelo ili upotreba za postizanje imovinske koristi. / Works permanently situated in squares, parks, streets, and/or other public places are free for usage. EVERYONE CAN MAKE PHOTOGRAPHS, RECORDINGS OF THESE WORKS, SHOW IT  (PRESENT IT) IN TV PROGRAMS AND SIMILARLY, but its reproduction IN three dimensions is forbidden or same use as original (meaning, if it's a statue you can't create plagiary and put it on the street) or for achieving material gain (which means plagiarism, you can't make plagiary of a statue and ask money for it).
I guess it can't be more clear then this - you can make photos of building facades, statues, etc. and present it in public media - end of story, I guess !?
But even this isn't the end of the road, because you can make further inquiry at Institute website, asking for further clarification.
(Something else - with all the project watchers maintaining their firm grip on accuracy and authenticity, and consequently on all changes and interpretation, what happens when you stumble on ambiguity like one in case of laws identical in substance (I know that Bosnian law was literally rewritten from Croatian), for example, Croatian Article 91. Paragraph (1) which states that "reproduction" of works is allowed, and Bosnian Article 52. "use"(age);
how about five additional laws for amendments, repeals and replacement of numerous articles and paragraphs (2007, 2011, 2013, 2014 and 2017) of the original Croatian law since 2003, have you checked for any differences in law and its individual articles ? And, consequently how sure are you that Croatian law from 2003 still applies, and maybe even more importantly, how much you care?)--Santasa99 (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems that I unintentionally deleted two comments by to other people - now I restored deleted comments, hopefully all is OK now?!--Santasa99 (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you may be concentrating on the wrong clause. As I read the English translation, the law is:
(1) The free use of the works permanently located in squares, parks, streets or other places accessible by the public shall be permitted.
(2) The works referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work or used for gaining economic advantage.
to expand on the second paragraph, such works are OK unless they are:
a) reproduced in three-dimensional form, or
b) used for the same purpose as the original work, or
c) used for gaining economic advantage.
Part a), agreed, means you can't make a 3-D reproduction. Photos, indeed, are not three-dimensional so this clause does not affect upload here. It is the same restriction that Croatia has. Part b) means the derivative work cannot be used for the same purpose of the original, i.e. if a photo is put up in public, you can't take a photo of that photo (or really, any 2-D work) which is framed much as the original, as that is basically a copy. Indeed, most photographs of public works are not affected by that clause, so that does not prevent upload either. Croatia does not have that clause, but that is a basically a rewording of part of the Berne Convention, so that type of restriction (not competing with the original in the marketplace) is usually inherent in all FoP laws. But then we have that last part, c), which says you cannot use such works to make money. So if you try to sell postcards using photos like these, you would be violating the BH law, but would not be violating the Croatian law, which does not have that all-important (for us) clause. From our perspective, that means that such works effectively have a non-commercial restriction, in other words is a non-commercial FoP, which means the photo is non-free (as to be "free", means that others can use these photos even for commercial gain without paying royalties). It is that last part, c), which is the crucial factor here. You can put such photos up on blogs, and that sort of thing -- but that one restriction goes over our policy line. The Croatian law, at least as of 2015), does not have that non-commercial restriction and that is the critical difference. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@Clindberg: as of 2014, not as of 2015. Also the 3D clause does affect uploads here, but not those concerning photos. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: It is hard to upload a 3-D object here ;-) I suppose if you make a 3-D reproduction, then upload a photo of *that*, it would be an issue. A 3-D model would be an interesting gray area. But I have a hard time imagining how it could affect typical uploads here. As for the date, the document was dated 2015, so while the law was from 2014 it had not changed again as of 2015. Anyways, the English translation of the 2017 version of the law is here (guess it's not on wipolex yet), and that article is unchanged, so that would appear to be current as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@Santasa99: There is a lot to respond to here. I will also respond to some things you removed because I think more clarification is needed. First of all, I only mocked your hopes for FoP in Bosnia and Herzegovina a little in my edit summary, otherwise I didn't really mock you. Trust me, you'd know. I have kind of a reputation here.
"would it be so strange if person assume that Wikimedia Commons could and should have something similar, especially with all these contentious interpretation of laws and regulations from around the world ?"
"instead of sending me to your personal page."
You asked where the lawyers at. User:Alexis Jazz#Where the lawyers at? answers that question. IANAL, because if I were, "Where the lawyers at?" would say "right here!".
"otherwise why would you send me to you personal page filled with humorous instructions directed at this specific category of editors,"
My user page is essentially an essay with some unconnected issues that I perceive to be flaws of Commons. There are no instructions there.
"Your first input, along with abrupt injunction of "speedy deletion" claim (you simply know those things at first glance)"
Not sure what you are trying to say here. Article 52 seems to be mostly compatible with Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial. If you try to use that license here ({{Cc-by-nc}}), it turns into a speedy deletion template.
"so I would like to know on what ground and from what paragraph's statement exactly you derived such conclusion, "2-d" is nowhere to be found in the law, so how on Earth you concluded that it applies to it !? I would really appreciate if you told me that"
Article 52 does not appear to be limited to any specific kind of work like statues, movie posters, graffiti, 2D or 3D.
"It's strange that I have to even say this, but people will never upload 3-d objects here, as Alexis Jazz astonishingly discovered himself,"
Quite the opposite, they already have.
"but you can make reproduction of 3-d copyrighted object in 2-d !?"
We don't argue that, for noncommercial purposes you can take as many photographs of statues as you like. But you can't put that photo on a postcard and sell it.
"which means plagiarism, you can't make plagiary of a statue and ask money for it"
I think you don't understand what plagiarism is. You could take a photo of a statue, put it on a postcard, attribute the creator of the statue correctly and in Croatia you would be allowed to sell that postcard. In Bosnia and Herzegovina you would only be allowed to give it away for free. Neither would be plagiarism.
You could also copy the statue as a 3D object, creating a new identical statue. You could attribute this to the original creator so it wouldn't be plagiarism, but it's not allowed in Croatia and not allowed in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The "used for the same purpose as the original work" is bit more difficult to explain. But if there would be a sign, nicely decorated so it is copyrightable, that says "Do not walk on the grass" you would be allowed to take a photograph of that sign, show the photograph on TV, share it on your blog, but you would not be allowed to put it on a new sign that you intend to use to alert people they should not walk on the grass.
how sure are you that Croatian law from 2003 still applies, and maybe even more importantly, how much you care?
We care very much thank you. We primarily go by the English WIPO translation in this case, which for Croatia is the 2014 version of the law. We would consider looking at the law in the original language, but that would require someone who can read that law in the original language, speaks English at a native or near-native level and has some reasonable understanding of copyright law and can point out exactly why the WIPO translation is wrong. Such a person is not around here as far as I know. Sorry, you brought Article 47 to this discussion which is about the right the quote, you seem confused about what plagiarism means and although your English is not bad, you don't seem to speak it at a native level even though your user page claims you do, along with four other languages. So we are going by the English WIPO translation. The relevant part: "The works referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work or used for gaining economic advantage." This clearly says "or used for gaining economic advantage". This leaves no room for doubt and we don't have the resources to figure out if WIPO somehow has translated it incorrectly (which I doubt). - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Freedom_of_panorama&oldid=309340205"